DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

The Workwear Group Pty Ltd T/A Workwear Group
(AG2015/7503)

YAKKA (SOMERTON) & NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Storage services
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 15 DECEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the Yakka (Somerton) & National Union ofWorkers Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Yakka (Somerton) & National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by The Workwear Group Pty Ltd T/A Workwear Group. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] The National Union of Workers being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 15 December 2015 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 22 December 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Workwear Group Pty Ltd, trading as Workwear Group, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Yakka (Somerton) & National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2015. The National Union of Workers sought to have the agreement approved, arguing it met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Workwear Group opposed the application, contending that the agreement did not comply with statutory provisions concerning good faith bargaining and the avoidance of unnecessary complexity.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement demonstrated good faith bargaining between the parties and whether it adhered to the statutory requirements regarding simplicity and clarity. The Commission had to examine if the negotiation process and the terms of the agreement were consistent with the principles of good faith and if the agreement itself was sufficiently simple and straightforward. The Workwear Group argued that the union had not engaged in good faith bargaining, while the union asserted that the agreement was a product of genuine negotiations and was not unnecessarily complex.

The Commission found that the negotiation process did not demonstrate the requisite good faith, as the union had not made any counter-offers or engaged in meaningful discussions beyond the initial presentation of their demands. Additionally, the Commission determined that the agreement was unnecessarily complex, containing provisions that were overly specific and included terms that were not directly related to the employment relationship. Given these findings, the Commission refused to approve the enterprise agreement. The Workwear Group's application was dismissed, and the agreement did not receive the necessary endorsement.

The Workwear Group Pty Ltd T/A Workwear Group

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established